Plenty of dogs get trained perfectly well with harnesses, mine included. It's no different than training with a flat collar, really. Unless, of course, you don't understand how to train without corrections, which is all I'm getting from your little anti-harness diatribe.Any trainer (Zak) who takes a dog out for training with a (d***ed) harness on is completely without merit. McCann's catch this in the video.
McCann's are correct that you must be the "go to" when the dog is stressed or over excited. It is called ADVOCATING for the dog.
McCann's are correct.. ask the dog for attention. Looking at (and interacting with other dogs through sight) other dogs IS self rewarding. They are correct that rewarding her for focused attention on other dogs is incorrect. What is he rewarding? He is rewarding her for looking at other dogs and NOT focus on the handler.
Next the dog is sniffing.. absolutely this dog is not sniffing to smell, the dog is showing stress.
The rest McCann's have their discussion spot on. Totally spot on. And NO HARNESS for TRAINING. I know you all think I am a crack pot for nixing harnesses, but they are NOT good training tools. Not at all. You cannot be clear with a harness.
You and I have been down this road before. Even the McCann's (multiple titles in agility at high levels which is as nearly purely positive as one can get in dog sport) say "lose the harness."Plenty of dogs get trained perfectly well with harnesses, mine included. It's no different than training with a flat collar, really. Unless, of course, you don't understand how to train without corrections, which is all I'm getting from your little anti-harness diatribe.
This forum is not terribly active with the advent of social media. A lot of forums are pretty dead except the Antique Tractor forums.. those can be very good if you need advice or procedure to do a repair or to obtain parts.@3GSD4IPO There's no correlation between popularity and competance. Yes, Zak is quite popular.
It's too quiet here, I thought there'd be a bazillion opinions. Me, I'm to each his own. So many people claiming the exclusive right answer, often at polar opposites.
Which makes me useless at carrying on this conversation.
Harnesses are handy for lifting dogs up and over obstacles. I use them on camping trips. For training, not my style.
Some of us neither want nor require a physical connection to the dog in order to communicate, beyond keeping them from doing something dangerous. And if you seriously think reaching the end of the leash is a correction ... lol.You and I have been down this road before. Even the McCann's (multiple titles in agility at high levels which is as nearly purely positive as one can get in dog sport) say "lose the harness."
You are welcome to train any way you wish (as is anyone). It does not mean it will work for others or as well.
Harnesses are unclear for communication in training. If you are training using a harness you might as well not have any physical connection to the dog (during training) including outside the home (NO leash, NO harness, NO collar). Every time the dog hits the end or pulls on the leash the dog is corrected no matter what the device or training method. If, in your training, your dog never ever ever hits the end of the leash then kudos to you. Most people are not capable of that.. and most dogs as well.. regardless of your teaching method.
Even in puppy class if you have a leash attached to your dog, it is HIGHLY likely your puppy is not going to keep that leash loose.. and every time he/she tightens the leash you have just given a correction. Might as well make it clear.
In classes around my area the first class is without the dog. Everyone to a person says "no harness; no head halters" Flat Martingale is preferred to start and to teach. Dogs cannot escape (they often do from harnesses) and the control, if needed, is far better. It does not mean you yank and crank. It simply is far more clear in communication.
Not every dog in a class is a brachiocephalic breed with a thick neck where a collar might be a device you move away from AFTER the dog is trained. Most dogs and handlers do better with collars, and most good trainers (including the McCann's) nix the harness until a dog is well trained (at which point the equipment used is superfluous.
Dang, I guess my trainer wasn't a good trainer then. Except HOW did a lousy trainer accomplish all of this? It's a mystery!most good trainers (including the McCann's) nix the harness until a dog is well trained (at which point the equipment used is superfluous.
|Nikki Sherwin has a degree in psychology and a College certificate in Child and Youth Worker. She always had a keen interest in behavior. She started off being professionally employed in 1994 teaching behavioral programs to children. She developed and taught anger management, self-esteem and friendship groups and participated in one to one counseling. Her experience in child psychology transitioned to dog behavior and she never stopped.|
Since 1997 Nikki has worked professionally with dogs.
Nikki’s experience has included:
That's because you are a smart trainer. Trying to use a collar/harness as a communication tool is literally the MOST inefficient way to communicate with a dog, lol.From soup to nuts; from harnesses to ... tractor parts? This thread has it all. LMAO.
Yeah. I don't see ANY correlation between collar / harness, and ability to communicate clearly. Unless, of course, if you're using it as a communication tool.
I tend to let the rewards, or absence of rewards, do the heavy lifting.
I NEED A ROFL emoji, BAD!This forum is not terribly active with the advent of social media. A lot of forums are pretty dead except the Antique Tractor forums.. those can be very good if you need advice or procedure to do a repair or to obtain parts.
Agreed. Especially when there are several non-physical methods that are far more effective.Ken Steepe, in the video: "I would repeat 'sit', and then SHOW them how to sit (slightly aggressive hand motion pulling up on leash and collar)". Communication I suppose, but not the kind of conversation I have with my dogs.
Suggesting the use of force, albeit relatively low-level force, is part of the .1% I'm not in agreement with.
His dog is way over threshold. And as a teaching / learning moment, it's highly unlikely she'll absorb ANY of it, including Ken's proposed correction.Agreed. Especially when there are several non-physical methods that are far more effective.
Me too. I don't 'do' FB, twitter, instagram or any of those platforms.I find FB an incredibly frustrating platform for discussion, it discourages longform text and encourages content free hostile exchanges...
Agree 100% with you, can't really think of anything I'd add to what you said.His dog is way over threshold. And as a teaching / learning moment, it's highly unlikely she'll absorb ANY of it, including Ken's proposed correction.
IMO what he needs to do is physically back away from the stimulus. From the look of things - far, FAR away from the stimulus. To begin with, get between his dog and the distraction to break her line of sight and her hyper-focus, and encourage her to follow. Whatever it takes ... food lure, presentation of a toy, walking backwards, kissy noises, whatever. Then at a much further point away, establish attention and try the cue again. Distance is your friend. THAT'S where learning has a chance to occur.
The dog is giving him soooo much information, and apparently Zak's not heeding even one little bit of it.